13th February 2019
PP Control & Automation combine extensive engineering and production capabilities in order to design an outsourcing solution that delivers the desired result.
This brief overview of PP’s Engineering & Production Capabilities featured in the ongoing video series so far, includes; Electrical Control Systems, Electronics Integration & “Box Builds”, Pneumatics & Hydraulics, Cabling & Interconnectivity solutions.
These are 4 of 6 core capabilities which make up the PP total Control & Automation solution. Videos for Vacuum Chambers & Gas Management Systems and Mechanical Assembly will be released in due course.
We provide a full outsourcing solution, from smaller box builds to large floor standing suites and our Electrical Control Systems capability is part of a full production engineering service that ensures repeatable quality and performance.
Keep reading / Watch the Electrical Control Systems video
Our complete contract manufacture solution allows for a more modular and configurable approach to box builds and design. “Build to print” and DFM (Design for Manufacture) capabilities are intended to optimise machine performance and overall cost to the customer, by allowing potential issues to be fixed during the least expensive place to address them – the design phase.
Keep reading / Watch the Electronics & “Box Builds” video
We provide a complete Pneumatic design service with assembly solutions that incorporate full circuit testing. A more modular and configurable method to design allows PP to approach every project with a fresh perspective – Pneumatics can be combined with mechanical integration to satisfy a client’s exact requirements, providing a truly bespoke solution.
Keep reading / Watch the Pneumatics & Hydraulics video
With over £1million invested in the latest state-of-the-art technology for cable harness manufacture, machine builders are benefiting from a fully automated solution. A solution that provides the very highest levels of production quality and an assurance of performance reliability, minimising the risks of damaging machine downtime caused by inferior manual production techniques.
Keep reading / Watch the Cabling & Interconnectivity video
If a complete control & automation, contract manufacturing or strategic outsourcing solution is something your company would benefit from, please complete the form below and our team will be in touch.
Ian Knight, Chief Information Officer at PP Control & Automation (PP C&A) challenges the prevailing, often vague narrative around AI adoption and reframes the conversation around a more practical starting point: operational constraints.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant concept for manufacturers. It is already being explored across quotation, production planning, engineering, quality, supply chain and customer service functions. Yet, for many organisations, the gap between experimentation and meaningful operational impact remains difficult to close.
A leading aquaculture specialist – that is changing the way fish are vaccinated safely – has signed a major manufacturing deal.
On paper, defined discipline-specific suppliers can look organised. However, every additional supplier introduces another handoff, and every handoff creates another point where time, quality, communication and accountability can be lost.
Very rarely does growth not surface because an OEM lacks ambition. Shortcomings arise because operating models built to support such ambition don’t evolve quickly enough.
Recent weeks have brought two important industry moments into sharp focus, concluding that demand for AI and automation is rising, but investment, skills, and long-term thinking must follow.
For decades, one question has sat at the heart of operational strategy for machine builders and OEMs: make or buy? It’s a familiar debate and it isn’t the wrong question by any means, but perhaps it is an incomplete one.
In most machine building businesses, change is still treated as an exception. A late-stage drawing revision, component substitution, or wiring tweak discovered during build. Each one is handled, resolved, and signed off. And then everyone moves on. But what if that’s the wrong way to think about it? What if change isn’t the disruption to the system but the system itself?
